About this Show

Washington Journal

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists. New.

NETWORK

DURATION
03:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 17 (141 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 38, United States 27, Israel 23, Syria 19, Washington 13, Iraq 11, New York 10, Afghanistan 9, U.s. 8, Russia 8, Obama 8, America 8, Ronald Reagan 7, Iran 7, U.n. 6, United Nations 6, North Korea 6, Nathan Guttman 6, Benjamin Netanyahu 6, Pakistan 6,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Washington Journal    News/Business. Live morning call-in program with  
   government officials, political leaders, and journalists. New.  

    March 24, 2013
    7:00 - 10:00am EDT  

7:00am
about u.s. missile defense capability. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. president obama, back in washington this morning following his middle east trip. forress is in recess passover and easter. the senate concluded its first budget in four years. michael bloomberg is launching a new ad campaign for guns and background purchasers. sunday, march 24, but we start with the front page of "the new york daily news."
7:01am
the me just read a portion of what they're writing -- host: politico is reporting on a story this morning, michael bloomberg pushing senators in a $12 million ad campaign, running the ads in 13 states during the easter and passover recess focused on expanding background checks for gun purchasers. solemnly supporting republicans in states where groups can most influence the upcoming votes. we would get your calls and
7:02am
comments on this. you can join us on line, twitter.com/c-spanwj, or send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. or you give us a phone call, for democrats, 202-585-3880. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for independents, 202-585-3882. let's take a line -- let's take a look at one of the latest ads from mayor michael bloomberg. [video clip] >> the nra once supported background checks. >> we think it is reasonable to provide mandatory institutional background checks for every sale and gun show. no loopholes anywhere for anyone. >> america can do this for us. please. us what you think about gun violence and the issue of
7:03am
playing out in a number of newspapers this morning. the front page of "the new york times," "putting senators on the spot." "the saturated television screen blitz in several states represents by far the biggest escalation in his attempts to become a one-man counterweight to the national rifle association." host: that story is also available online. there is a photograph of one gun owner in america.
7:04am
that line, "putting swing state senators on the spot." the issue of guns came up this week, giving dianne feinstein the worst week in washington. signaled an end on tuesday when he announced that the ban of high capacity ammunition magazines -- host: tell us what you think about the issue of gun violence and this latest campaign by mayor michael bloomberg and the new york -- and "the new york daily news" story about videogames and the impact their
7:05am
of violence in this country. robert, okla., good morning. caller: i am the first caller, exciting. i never get on. calling to make a comment. i am retired, i am a city planner. i sold in the electronics department thousands of video games. but the have an x box, kids i was selling them to, their grandparents or parents would come up -- wal-mart has a policy about mature games. the grandparents would come and buy it for kids as young as seven or a. they said they have seen it all, do not worry. these are young people whose minds are forming. them of these games. there is a lot of that going around. excitedds are real looking at the case, i have to
7:06am
tell them that i can i get it for them. my own personal comment. host: why do you think a parent would let a 7, 8, 9, 10-year- old have one of those games rated mature? >> the comment from the parent is -- they have seen it all anyway. comment from the parent is that they have seen it all anyway. the parentsne for or their grandparents. we come back up, grab the parent. i tell them it is for mature. they said they have seen it all anyway. host: this is page. host: let's go back to the story
7:07am
from dan friedman this morning. our first caller from oklahoma looking at the issue of video games on our culture. charlesmarch 2, grassley proposed an amendment. host: again and, this is a story this morning, the front page of
7:08am
"the new york daily news." focusing on video games and the impact the have and our culture. john is joining us from illinois. republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is about the girl that was killed in that unfortunate incident. from what i understand she was shot to death was sitting in her father's lap. if the politicians want to go after criminals on this type of stuff, this father was a known gang member. does he not have some responsibility, there something in the child's death? i do feel sorry for the family, but it seems to me that they should also be prosecuting him for having a hand in this. host: your part of the country has been hit hard by gun violence. chicago leads the nation, doesn't it? caller: yes, it does.
7:09am
i am a law-abiding gun owners. i have raised my kids properly. but i do not want to see my rights taken away. host: thank you. justin, tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how you doing? host: good, thank you. caller: we are talking a lot about guns. with video games we are talking a lot about freedom of speech. these things have been sacrosanct for a long time. what you find when we look at these studies is we really need to look at our monetary policy. as peopleppening is begin to lose purchasing power and cannot buy the things that they need -- this is a direct, indirect relationship to what the bankers have accomplished
7:10am
with stealing how much money from our economy at gunpoint? we look at this socioeconomic issue and as it becomes worse, you are looking at a high correlation of rates. the interesting thing is we have to stop and frisk. mayor bloomberg, of course. we look throughout the world and we see all these places where people are fighting for their rights. we actually have a constitution that has historical precedents on like any country in the world. and we are at a point where as a that we haveafraid fought for these wonderful things and these politicians who, unfortunately, are very concerned about taking away our rights to keep us "safe."
7:11am
but they are not looking at the root cause. thank you -- excuse me -- i am try to get it all out without trying to waste too much of your show. i appreciate you guys allowing me to say it. well, thank you for what you do. i hope everyone else is paying attention to. the socioeconomic problems, no bankers in prison. hasow that the senate passed its budget, the house budget debate continues in the coming months leading to the next fiscal year. these issues will continue to percolate and move to center stage. mark has this --
7:12am
host: senator tom coburn is our guest on "newsmakers." the program that airs after this." -- this. "senator colburn does not believe that the gun violence legislation being brought to the floor this month has a chance to become law without significant changes. it does not have 60 votes. he opposes specific background check provisions that senator harry reid has included in the package, increasing the costs associated with the action under the system." you can read the story online at rollcall.com. the nra weighed in on all this, of course, with a series of ads, including this one. [video clip] >> in a recent closed-door
7:13am
speech, bill clinton spoke about american dollars. "these people have been listening to this stuff so long, they believe that." "it is not surprising that their bitter and cling to guns and religion." we grant them power. we protect them. they do not make us free. as long as we have the second amendment, we always will be. ourre america and politicians are only as powerful as we the people will allow. the latest from the nra, again focusing on guns, background checks.
7:14am
a look at guns and video games in our country. of course, front and center, following what happened in newtown, conn. last december. the hearst newspaper focusing on all of these issues, this writing -- chronicle," exploring one aspect of our culture, the prevalence of violence in our media. read some of the opinions available online. a lot of people weighing in on all of this. brian joins us from sterling
7:15am
heights, michigan. morning. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: excellent. video games, as long as a , let thes a scapegoat parents raise the kids. back in the 1980's and 1990's anytime someone killed someone they blamed metal music. it is the same thing here. someone was out, they start shooting at people -- people play video games. he played video games. that is what it is. no. it starts at home. it starts with the parents. host: brian, thank you for a call. this point from joseph -- you can join us online at twitter, twitter.com/c-spanwj. jason, democratic line, good morning.
7:16am
caller: good morning. my point is how come they are always against the law abiding citizens in taking those away when they do not uphold the seriousness towards people who commit these crimes. when you go places abolishing the death penalty for people to commit crimes, do not waste the taxpayers' dollars putting them in jail for dinner if they create a violent crime with a gun. in newtown, he shot himself, there was something mentally wrong with him. in aurora.guy he will be in jail forever. people think that they can get off, they plead it down any more.
7:17am
there's nothing to protect law- abiding citizens anymore. host: thank you for the call. this point from, like, -- -- from michael -- those killed by the way, you can also join the conversation on our facebook page. this is from "the new york post." "seeing double"? the former pope and poked bennett -- a former pope and the current pope meeting in italy as pope francis took over as the head of the church. stamford, connecticut, republican line. good morning, bob. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. all of these mass murders were
7:18am
done by people with known medical histories. histories of insanity. done.g was let's take a one would get the giffords. she met with the sky. there was an interview. i think it was on c-span, she met with this guy and he got bent better shape because she would not meet with him again. where was security for getting giffords and her outdoor event? in this interview she pooh- poohed the whole thing. she had no security. she was as responsible as the shooter in this event. it is tragic that she had no regard for her own safety.
7:19am
host: on our facebook page, glenn has this point -- host: of the twitter page there is this -- frontgun violence is the page below the fold in "the washington post." "a striking racial divide." let me share a portion of what they find.
7:20am
host: the story this morning, if you go inside on the article there is a graph with a look at homicides and suicides across the country. suicide and homicide statistics about -- as shaped by race. david, good morning. caller: good morning. my comment was regarding the previous comment about the interview that was with congressman cat -- debbie
7:21am
giffords. the incident that led to that shooting and the other points that she brought up. i listened to her regarding the video games having a possible affect linked to the shootings in recent history. i guess my concern is legislation, the tide of and howion over guns the do that in terms though background checks, requiring safety glasses. even some biometric devices can be a phased the guns. allowing only the owner to fire the gun. of course, those are high end and will not be the most functional type of weapon.
7:22am
people will still be looking for best deals. as far as an alternative, that would be one of the things i would like to see happen. terrified -- most the most terrifying thing to me -- as a terrorism redefinition of terrorism, from terrorism 101 in the marines, groupling fear by unseen upon the majority of people. host: thank you for the call, david. this is from our twitter page. host: mayor bloomberg has a new ad campaign that begins this
7:23am
week. from coup -- from "the new york times," new details. host: the president weighed in on guns in his weekly address. [video clip] >> two weeks ago the senate
7:24am
introduced a bill that would make it harder for criminals and people with mental illness to get a gun, an idea supported by the majority of americans and gun owners. the senate introduced a bill that would crack down on anyone who buys a the work done under the scheme of selling it to criminals. and finally, the senate took steps to reinstate and ban the sale of military style assault weapons. saferking our schools -- places to learn and grow. these ideas should not be controversial, they are common sense and supported by a majority of the american people. torge the senate and house give each of them a vote. as i said before, we will -- we may not be able to prevent every act of violence in this country, but we have an obligation to try, to do what we can. right now we have a real chance
7:25am
to reduce gun violence in america and prevent the very worst violence. >> the press -- host: the president weighing in on drugs -- on guns right before his trip to the middle east. the sunday roundtable focuses on what is next. cbs builds month, plant will be joining us in the next hour. arkansas is up for reelection next year, this had my --
7:26am
host: again, mark crier is up for reelection next year. joshes joining us from huber, n.c.. the morning. -- josh is joining us from huber, n.c. caller: the real problem is that we do not educate our children and young people about guns and how to respect them. and how to properly use one. family does not own a gun, the chances of your child going into a house with guns is very high. they have been a part of america for a long time. we need to educate our young people on the dangers of them.
7:27am
host: thank you for the call. from our facebook page, tracy has this point of view. of these mass shootings were care -- host: bill joins us on the phone from wichita, kansas. your thoughts on this? caller code to me it is light brown 3, bomb in the record, here we go again. three,s like round the bumping up the record, here we go again. what -- where in the world are the parents of these kids? especially this one in georgia with the poor baby who was shot and killed. what is a 13-year-old and 16-
7:28am
year-old kid doing with an unloaded handgun? figure this out. it has to go back to the parents. i would like to see the parents of those kids that killed that us, anyoneur else, i do not care. where were you at when they were shot? with --g has gone down gone horribly wrong with the breakdown of the parental obedience of these kids. these young kids, where do they get these guns? being a gun owner, with children and grandkids, it does not even cross their minds that kids or grandkids would take
7:29am
that gun and do this. host: thank you for the call. brian was basically saying the same thing on facebook. host: another point of view -- registered handguns, from our twitter page. view frompoint of "the daily news," the cover story is on violent video games.
7:30am
host: bernard is on the phone from a plant the, democratic line. caller: i am from the area, atlanta, where there is a high amount of gun violence. i grew up with a high amount of gun violence. i have been convicted of nonviolent felonies. we cannot legally get a weapon. so, we are at the mercy of people who commit violent felonies. people being shot unarmed. i was trained how to use weapons. even though i am a convicted felon.
7:31am
i refuse to get weapons up. rights have noal exception. years they have been chipping away. done, you would not have that problem. thank you, have a nice day. host: this point from can -- us fromck is joining chicago. good morning, welcome. caller: how are you? cut host: good, thank you. caller: we are always trying to do something about something we can do nothing about. the man before me, no matter how much you put that a criminal cannot get a gun, he will find a way to get a gun. this is a personal experience
7:32am
from an analog line, whose name i will not give. he was not supposed to have a gun. yet every time he got out of prison, he got a gun. there is nothing you can do about this except the three strikes and you're out law. done in the commission of a crime, 25 solid years. no parole, no good time. nothing but 45 years plus the time he had when he had begun. host: ok? only thing that you can really do is put him in a suit -- in a physician outside society. weekly," theat "cq budget debate.
7:33am
"the great divide in red and white." house andn, the senate are in recess for passover and easter, marking the start of holy week. congress returns in two weeks. from "politico," this morning, joe mansion from west virginia in talks on background checks. is quietly in talks to broaden background checks on
7:34am
purchasers of firearms. that the nra is even talking suggest that there is room for negotiation to the group despite the public posture to temper gun laws. this deal could draw enough republicans and red state democrats over the filibuster on the overall gun control bill when it hits the floor next month." you can read the story online at politico.com. the morning, alan. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. first-time caller. host: glad that you. do not be a stranger. caller: i will try. host: ok. caller: concerning the video games, i was telling the son, when iut my was teaching her how to drive we were driving around the art of the house.
7:35am
we had a little car that i did not care much about. he hit a post in the yard and laughed about it. my first comment to him is that this is not one of your video games where you can just hit the reset button and everything is fixed. i think that mentality has been permeating sure of the kids the play these games. they hid the reset button and things go back. most of the problem, obviously, is because of the availability of the guns because the gun makers and people who support the gun makers keep trying to convince people that we need banning the military assault weapons, i am a 22 year retiree and i know what i am talking about. 15, wheneveric ar
7:36am
they call it, there is a reason to have those weapons in the civilian market. host: how was your son's driving now? caller: i guess is driving is ok. host: thank you for the call. appreciate it. caller: thank you. host: this is from our twitter page -- host: sella ross says -- also weighing in on all of this, if you want to get the details on the bloomberg campaign is available at the huffington post. mike joins us from tennessee.
7:37am
good morning. good morning, you are on the air, mike. caller: thank you. i have been trying to get ahold of the show for a while. sn the gun control, most year hunters and the people that own the weapons do not have 30 round clips to begin with. because most of them are hunters. but for their enjoyment, target practice and everything, they do not do it to hunt with, most of them only carry a five round magazine. years ago they said you cannot have these. but that is not right for the american people. the second amendment, we are weapons and we
7:38am
have the right to even stand up against the government, especially when the government already tells us everything we have to think. host: thank you for the call. stanley has this point from chicago -- host: a look at the news magazines, "cq weekly," looking at shrinking the army if the budget cuts will not do it for them. "the atlantic's," magazine. the touchscreen generation is doing. week in arguments this the defense court on
7:39am
of marriage act. coverage on the supreme court from tuesday and wednesday. and become a new york, good morning, welcome to the program -- andrew, new york, good morning. welcome to the program. caller: they're turning the into victims. the way the gets on the news channel, they want to be famous for these heinous crimes. host: ok, thank you for the call. the headline this morning, if you are just tuning in, michael bloomberg just launched his campaign, myers against legal gun use -- mayors against illegal gun use."
7:40am
tom coburn talked about guns on "newsmakers," airing at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. here is a portion of the program airing later this morning. [video clip] >> there is a better way to do this, going forward. is it time to revisit the budget act? >> it is only novel to you all because we have not done it in four years. i have done at four times before. there's nothing wrong with this process. it is the only time in your truly protected. political gains? >> there always will be. but i have got to have about 15 amendments eliminating duplication. we will do it, but i voted against because we did not want
7:41am
to eliminate what comes out of their every year. they will have to explain to the american people why we have these job training program that to not work. we need to use some of a skill for a lifetime. save us from monday. our conversation with tom colburn continues this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. coming up in a few minutes, our son the round table as we focus on the president's trip to the middle east. what is next for the middle east peace process? what is the endgame? 100 years of presidential news conferences being celebrated this week. bill joins us in our next hour. gun violence is one of the issues coming up on the sunday
7:42am
morning programs, which can be c-span radio. on nancy, good morning. >> [no audio] >> they are talking about gun control on network tv talk shows, same-sex marriage, gun- control legislation, veterans, and the present football to the middle east -- and the president's trip to the middle east. today's guests include michael bloomberg, wayne lapierre, and attorney david boyce. at 1:00 p.m., the manager of the president's reelection campaign and republican consultant karl rove. at 2:00 p.m., chris wallace speaks with rand paul and gary
7:43am
bauer, the president of american values. veterans affairs secretary, erickson said he, on at 3:00 p.m., as well as the chief .olicy officer for veterans president of freedom to marry, tony perkins, president of the family research council. brought to you as a public- service by the network and c- span. here the repairs at noon, eastern. 1:00 p.m. o listen to them all on c- span radio. your smart phone,
7:44am
or online. [video clip] >> the most striking differences the calmness of teh parade. 100 years ago it was less of a parade and more of a riot. the police refused to protect them and as it progressed, crowds got larger and larger, unruly, they had been drinking. they would throw things and shout things, telling them to go home. so, the crowd got larger and larger and more aggressive. the women could not before word. the police were involved. the secretary of defense brought back thevalry to push unruly crowd so that the women could continue their exercise. wonderful and
7:45am
peaceful assembly celebrating how far we have come in 100 years. this weekend, a look at the american women's suffrage parade, other than c-span 3. "first ladies," called a bigamist and an adulterer during her husband's 1828 campaign, theresa jackson died of a heart attack before and jackson took office. his knees becomes the white house hostess but is later dismissed as fallout from the scandal. in the next of ministration, angelica van buren is the hostess for her father-in-law, martin van barron, a widower. will take your calls and comments, live on c-span 3. also on c-span radio and c- span.org.
7:46am
>> "washington journal" continues. host: our son their roundtable focuses on the president's trip to the middle east. we want to welcome nathan guttman, a morning, thank you for being with us. and said arikat, the washington [indiscernible] the question was posed -- president pays a visit, what will be held a string -- palestinians and israelis do now? of what you think of that? on that think that front we are likely to see some .ovement
7:47am
the palestinian authority, benjamin netanyahu, is real, we are seeing some movement that until this moment was basically dormant. , but nathan guttman expectations going in were pretty low. the president even said that he would use this trip to listen. what were the results? guest: the white house was result -- was wise to lower expectations. we are trying to listen to the sides. the president camera a message, that we've hill say.
7:48am
that from translate the practical measures? host: the president, crossing the border into the palestinian territory. here is what abbas had to say about -- here is what he said about the peace process. [video clip] >> the status quo is not really the status quo, the situation on the ground keeps changing into something harder to reach. i know that the palestinian people are frustrated. am of the same messages i conveying in israel is that we cannot give up. cannot give up on the search for peace, no matter how hard it is. as i said with the prime minister yesterday, we will
7:49am
continue to look for steps that willwhich blast in ps depend. -- will continue to look for steps on which we can depend. in the game.back he is saying that he is back in the game and giving this top priority. he also went on to say that the negotiation, going back to the negotiations, is the only possible way to achieve a two- stage solution. he suggested that negotiations should not be conditioned in a way. in that respect, he moved towards the iranian solution on how to start this. he definitely made it clear that the united states still holds as
7:50am
a priority of the two-stage solution and will do what they can to achieve it. possibly under his watch. host: our focus is on the middle east. the phone lines are open. send us an e-mail or joining us on facebook, send us a tweet at twitter.com/c-spanwj. for our radio audience i will explain what we're looking at, a caricature of the president and israeli prime minister in israel. the israeli prime minister saying -- i do not understand what people think we have such a contentious relationship. on the rear of a car, a mitt romney bumper sticker. guest: it is no secret that he had a tense relationship with president obama. even though they will deny it, it was clear that he was close to mitt romney and so said that he supported mitt romney.
7:51am
he definitely did not do much to support obama in this re- election cycle. however these three short days in the middle east have done a lot to bridge these gaps. we saw benjamin netanyahu willing to be persuaded by president obama. i think we saw the israeli public, even though it may have started out with a deep mistrust towards obama, it ended this week with a lot of affection. maybe it did manage to bridge some of these gaps. ,ost: after a two state evening he arrived on wednesday, meeting with the israeli prime minister. thursday he traveled to the west bank and met with the palestinian authority president.
7:52am
friday, meeting with the king of playing tourist yesterday and returning to washington at 8:00 last evening. the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, asked about the ambitions of iran when it comes to your -- nuclear weapons. here is more. [video clip] >> we had an opportunity to begin discussing a wide range of issues critical to our countries. foremost among these is the iranian fault -- relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons. mr. president, you have made it clear the you're determined to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. i appreciate your forthright position on this point. and also appreciated you have noted that you have acted to return to fort this threat both through determined diplomacy and strong sanctions giving stronger.
7:53am
notwithstanding our joint efforts and your great success, mobilizing the international community, diplomacy and sanctions so far have not stopped iran and its nuclear program. my view is that in order to stop the program peacefully, diplomacy actions must be augmented by clear and credible threats of military action. in this regard, mr. president i want to thank you again for all is making clear that israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat. host: let me get your reaction to that and to this specific twitter message to you, nathan guttman -- the direct threat is first of all to israel, but regarding the broader issue of course a nuclear iran or, if you want, a first strike neighbor in
7:54am
the broad circle would have the ability to strike american interests in the region. there is more than one in the region. they could threaten afghanistan, iraq, the broader middle east. they could ignite a nuclear arms race and they're the first country to worry about. that is what we saw this strong message from benjamin netanyahu. host: said arikat, this is a related twitter message on where we are after 10 years of war in iraq and afghanistan -- way, let me add, either what is the effect on the middle east specifically? guest: i spent five years in iraq as the u.n. spokesman, i got to know it intimately. let me tell you that iraq is a
7:55am
pretty much destroyed country. in many ways.d physically and otherwise. there is no reconciliation. war in iraq weof find that the country is more divided than ever. as we have seen from john they's visit today, tensions between the united , nots and this government very cordial. imbued with a lot of tension. a lot coming back from the community of nations they have not really a implemented. that it is all because of a constitution that failed the entire public at
7:56am
large. basically taking segments of society and addressing themselves to them. host: this unannounced trip that you just indicated in iraq, these officials with the president on his trip, the associated press pointed out that there were a series of .eetings over flights iran says that this is humanitarian aid and that syria is getting the weapons or else. concern, as the israelis feel that regardless of everything going on, they look to the north and in syria they see it disintegrating. weapons are flowing into the regime of the time.
7:57am
if we discussed the threat to wouldtabilizing, weapons also be a threat to the united states and its interest in the region. independent line, florida, welcome to the program. caller: welcome, gentlemen. i would like to posit, if i aboute are talking netanyahu and israeli intransigence when it comes to the peace treaty. i am at a loss. hamas still has on its charter the destruction of israel. we know that abbas has indicated that he wants to retire. when the israelis left the theyity zone of lebanon,
7:58am
got rockets. when they left -- when they left gaza, they got rockets and kidnapping. is the trip piece on the west bank? i am concerned they will be getting them on the west bank, sooner or later. the gentleman from the wicked andleaks with her this iran was it as real as the work to be? host: the president spoke specifically about hamas, a perfect segue from your point. here's more from the president from this past week. we will get your reaction. [video clip] >> this all stands in stark
7:59am
contrast to the misery and repression that so many palestinians continue to confront. hamas refuses to denounce violence and cares more about pushing its own dogma rather than allowing palestinians to live freely. it is about tearing visit -- caring israel down rather than building palestine up -- tearing israel down rather than building palestine up. host: our guest this morning, said arikat.n and your reaction? guest of people seem to forget elected,e hamas was according to the monitors and
8:00am
international standards immediately. the cramped situation was conducive. the fact that the former prime minister chose to withdraw unilaterally without coordinating this and intended and didish their power up with what is going on today. -- ended up with what is going on today. hamas is more militant than the west bank. the occupation cannot go on. where we have occupation is in the west bank. you have to deal with it on that basis. this situation must end. the only way it can end is with a brokered deal with the palestinians on the west bank.
8:01am
there is no silver bullet for peace in the middle east. given up is not an option. did a thing. syria.o back to are we doing the right thing in cilia? -- in syria? only redline the white house put out was the use of chemical weapons. there were reports from syria that the president assad regime used chemical weapons against the rebels and the united states reached the conclusion that that is probably not so. this situation is close to the brink of forcing the united states to intervene in some way to prevent crossing this redline.
8:02am
president obama's trip to the region, including jordan, is hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees and highlighted the fact that the situation on the ground in syria is not getting better. there is no sign that it will get better. it does not seem the united states has a response to this ongoing challenge. guest: the united states has been the biggest donor in terms of humanitarian and financial aid to the syrian opposition. close to $500 million so far. also giving logistical and to indications training. we are told there is some training and intelligence being given to the militants, parts of the opposition. we need to understand what is going on in syria is looking like a civil war. extremistr between islamic militant groups that are not real militias.
8:03am
like 300 something different militant groups. it is difficult to give direct aid. we do not know who they are. a lot of them a spouse al qaeda dogma. a lot of the one to impose law.ia- sharia -- sharia law. syria is a mosaic of different groups. there is a large christian community. they do not want to see sharia law imposed. the united states has been doing a measured policy that will be effective in the long run. -- ataoe we at ipods with britain and
8:04am
-- at odds host: with germany and britain? president obama said the syria is not just a problem of the united states, but for the entire world. it is difficult for the united states to explain how it is staying on the sidelines and providing humanitarian support when there is a crisis of this magnitude going on. it will be increasingly more difficult to stay on the sidelines with the europeans pushing for more. there has arikat, been discussion as to what the chemical weapons were used in science syria. in a news over the last 48 hours -- used inside syria.
8:05am
last 48 hours?he hasstate department no evidence to show that the syrian government or the opposition -- there have been opposition -- accusations on both sides about using chemical weapons. there has been no evidence of that. the united nations is leading an effort to determine whether chemical weapons have been used. there are all kinds of technical things involved. they need to conduct these experts to determine if it is by a examination or looking at
8:06am
injuries to determine whether chemical weapons have been used. we have been told by people in the intelligence community the for the regime to use chemical weapons, there are logistical problems. thus far, there has been no evidence. host: a follow-up from one of our viewers. it is in the rebels' interest to use chemical weapons. there is no upside for president assad to do it. this headline from the baltimore sun. the president urging a palestinian state. remarks by president obama. [video clip] in their shoes. look at the world through their eyes.
8:07am
not fair that a palestinian child cannot go out. [applause] living their entire lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of those young people and their parents and their grandparents every single day. when violence against palestinians goes unpunished. [applause] it is not right to prevent palestinians from farming their lands or restricting a student's ability to move around the west bank or displace palestinian families from their homes. [applause]
8:08am
neither occupation or expulsion is the answer. host: the president speaking in jerusalem. let me go back to the words from the new york times. israelisdent embraced with understanding and honesty, which is why the palestinians need to drop their preconditions and into the negotiations and israel needs to test and test again what the and thet abbas palestinian authority can deliver. that seems to be the key to all of this. guest: that seems to be the next phase. obama made clear he is not going to ask for that. he tried it in his first term and it did not work. he pressed israel to do it and it was a long negotiation. the settlement freeze did not lead to any breakthrough in the negotiations. that would be a non-starter.
8:09am
saw, we sawwe just the president tapped into popular sentiments. they want to seek peace. there is a sense of indifference in israeli society, this sense of security because of a wall separating them from the palestinians into a missile defense system. the israelis lost interest in the peace process. what obama was trying to tell them is you cannot ignore this problem. you have to put yourself in their shoes. the conflict is still going on. host: nathan guttman is the washington bureau chief forfor jewish daily forward. -- for jewish daily forward. can abbas delivered? guest: he is a partner that is
8:10am
willing to go more than half way. settlements are a big issue for the palestinians. much advice has come from this town and other places that the settlements should not be an issue. the more settlements you build, the less chance you have for a rival palestinian state. what the president did in that theicular segment was, from palestinian's point of view, that was his finest moment. he said, put yourself in their shoes. see how they endure the military occupation day after day. on the issue of settlements, there is probably some sort of agreement. everybody talks about the silent commitment by benjamin netanyahu that we will not expand outside jerusalem and
8:11am
some of the other areas. this will go a great deal to sympathize with the palestinians to go forward and rejoin the negotiations. if this were to be true, some activities in the larger middle east -- i think you will find the palestinians are ready to go to negotiations. we have to look at this memo leaked by the new york times a couple of days ago with the palestinians were appealing to the president to get a verbal commitment from benjamin netanyahu that he will not expand settlements in the west bank outside the major plots. they want to go back to negotiating because they know this is the only way to achieve what they want. host: let's go to james in mississippi. good morning to you.
8:12am
good morning. [indiscernible] i am in the vietnam war. most of the wars we fight are for political gain, politicians, building bridges. they build them, they get blown up and the kennedys make more money. these conflicts are for the governments to get together and say, we have a conflict. you need to come over here and help us. host: james, thank you for the call. anybody talking about military use in the middle east was as a diplomatic effort? guest: i do not think anybody is talking but american military use. they are talking about the
8:13am
question of what the the united states needs to intervene militarily in iran. there is no appetite in the united states or in the american government to start another war in the middle east. we are marking tenures for the iraq war. marking 10we are years for the iraq war. -- they dont to feel not want america to go to war with iran. if everything is exhausted and nothing works, the united states will be willing to do something against public opinion, that is to send troops to the middle east again. host: good morning on the democratic line. caller: what is the role of the u.n. to nations in this
8:14am
conflict, especially in syria right now? why can the united nations put troops there and say we will take action against whatever party decides to violate the cease-fire? keep it in a holding pattern in syria. as far as israel and iran are concerned, all it would take is for the united nations. why are we trying to solve this individually? guest: good question. the united nations has been involved with this from the beginning. the biganent members -- five on the security council -- do not see eye to eye on what should be done in syria. resolution, it gets vetoed by the russians.
8:15am
i assume the russians have proposed another resolution that will be vetoed by the united states. until these positions are in tandem with one another, france, britain, russia, china, we are not likely to see an effective role for the u.n. in syria. there was a seasoned diplomat in they went back and forth. the point that the gentleman raises, can we send in peacekeeping forces? conceivably, you can and ultimately, you would. you need the agreement of both sides. side, you dotion not know who to talk to. we have the syrian coalition that represents all serious sides. -- syrian
8:16am
syrian free army that people say is no more than a banner. it is a difficult situation. for the u.n. to be effective and send in peacekeeping forces -- we did have monitors, but they were not able to conduct business because of the conflict. host: we talked about secretary of state john kerry, who made an unannounced visit to iraq over the weekend after traveling to jordan before he departed washington d.c. former pakistani president arrived back in pakistan for the first time in four years after a self-imposed exile. he might be marking a political comeback. leonard is on the phone from an arbor, michigan.
8:17am
i know humanitarian and this and that for people in other nations. the gentleman mentioned earlier the the united nations, united states is coming up too much with foreign policy and helping the fallen in getting involved too much. -- getting involved with foreign nations too much. u.n. another call on the did you want to weigh in on that? way it ist is not the seen in the world, where people feel the united states is not
8:18am
engaged enough after recent years. host: nathan guttman is with jewish daily forward and said arikat with al-quds. question had a quick and i would like a clarification of it. that the two me state solution is dead. the situation is static. here is my question. understood that all of the palestinians in the west bay and in gaza, are they subject -- in the west bank and in gaza, are they subject to israel? do we have a situation where palestinians do not get rights? guttman? the minority of the
8:19am
palestinians in east jerusalem do have is really i.d. cards. arelegal terms is that they an occupied population. guest: absolutely. the occupation that has gone on for far too long has denied palestinians the most basic of rights. israelis can arrest people, as we have seen last night. this happens on a daily basis. there are checkpoints and walls that snake through the west bank. 26 feetup as high as suppurating communities and keeping people -- separating communities and keeping people from going from one place to the other.
8:20am
it must end. there is a great deal of feeling that we have not achieved enough on that score to keep it alive and viable. the problem is the alternatives to the two state solution. you will have a situation where it is a one state solution where your web one segment of the population in joline democratic freedoms and another segment of the -- enjoying democratic freedoms and another segment of the population not enjoying anything. that is not sustainable. that is a recipe for continued conflict. host: the president's chip to the middle east and -- the
8:21am
president's trip to israel and the middle east. good morning. that we do not get the same situation in syria between the israelis and the palestinians, is there some mechanism that can be employed by the united nations or the european union or of the quartet to prevent the other mideast, arab, persians countries from using these because ofs a proxy their own internal conflict within their countries. ? is there some way the relief efforts and the money can be employed in a more open way so that there is an accountability on who is funded and with what
8:22am
sos and with what ideology that we do not wind up with all of these fractured and militant exacts, which is the opposite of nation-building? i know it is a tough question. host: thanks for the call. how to you know who is funding whom? thank you for the call. guest: it may be too lake to reach this point of accountability. the syrian opposition is made up of all different military groups and militants and we do not know who they are. it is not clear what position russia is playing on this issue.
8:23am
overthrowing the president assad regime. and maybe too lake waiting for .his in terms of the international , it isty stepping in riskier than this seems. you are talking about something that could lead to the disintegration of the serious state altogether. someone will have to own the states at the end of the day. elementshy we see the in washington moving in. host: did netanyahu we see if his strike authorization while giving president obama and his legacy? we have a window of
8:24am
opportunity for the fomc to work. opportunitydent -- for diplomacy to work. if israel goes into war against iran, you can bet that the united states will not sit idly by. it will be involved. the united states is not interested in the world is not interested. the last thing we need is another war in the middle east. an israeli strike will drive the united states into a war that no one can determine the future of. two monthse month or or years to come. suppose you want to go after the nuclear program and the facilities in iran. these are spread over a huge area. size ofthree times the
8:25am
iraq. it is not just one area like in the 1980's. that will take a huge effort to destroy it. i believe the united states was able to convince the israeli prime minister and the israeli government and even the hawks that perhaps we should hold back and allow the sanctions to work. they are working. there are all kinds of indications that iraq -- iran is getting the message. host: frank is joining us from oklahoma on our line for independents. just for president's sake, i would like to speak tuesday -- for brevity's 6, i would like to speak to the whole , i would likeake
8:26am
to speak to the whole situation. damascus will be destroyed and will not be and habitable again. there are several prophecies that tell the rest of the world not to try to divide up the land of israel because god will divide those nations that get involved in that. in thewe see that a lot united states in recent years. in the israeli right-wing, many of them come from the christian evangelical community of the united states. that is a significant source of support. caller: this religious lithology
8:27am
is driving. it has nothing to do with the people of this -- this religious methodology is driving this. it has nothing to do with the people of this country caring about israel. it is outrageous. quotesread two brief regarding israel. it is the duty of israeli leaders to explain a certain number of facts. there is no zionism and no colonialization without the eviction of the arabs and the expropriation of their land. this is from david ben-gurion. if i were an arab leader, i would never sign an agreement with an israeli leader. god is not theirs.
8:28am
is that their faults? we have come and stolen their country. why would they accept that? that pointll stop on and at one of the voice. the u.s. needs to stop funding israel's enemies. let's conclude on his point and these points. i will begin with you. funding will not be cut off to israel in the foreseeable future. i am not a biblical scholar. i do not know a lot about the bible. i leave it to international law. to deale rules on how with these issues. there is an occupation and that occupation must end.
8:29am
over every detail with a fine tooth comb. it is not what needs to be done, but having the will to do it and having the united states say as the sponsor of this process, have the will to say, you must do this now. what isthan guttman, the next step? what are you looking for a jumble guest: trying to get some small measures on the ground to rebuild the two sides. -- what are you looking for? trying to get some small measures on the ground to rebuild both sides. buildsteps that could trust.
8:30am
after this isn't, is really understand that the u.s. has been back on security issues -- after this visit, israeli is understand that the u.s. has bareback on security issues. on securityk issues. we are talking about small movements on the ground that can lead to an agreement. host: nathan guttman is with jewish daily forward and said arikat wth al-quds. quds.th al- thank you for being with us. programs are part of c-span's video library at c- span.org. will be bill plante
8:31am
joining us with his perspective on 100 years of presidential press conferences. commemoratell another anniversary. president ronald reagan and his star wars defense initiative. "washington journal" continues. we are back in a moment. >> we could take pictures of the ans and seemri sc the whole thing.
8:32am
there is an enormous gap about how the surface of the brain function to be able to move my hand or to look at u.n. process the information or to lay down a memory. we do not know how that works. a lot of this will be technology development. a lot of it will be nano- technology. we want to look at london's of thousands of brain cells at the same time to understand -- look at hundreds of thousands of plant cells at the same time. we do not have a scientific plan about milestones. it is getting to be an exciting moment to put something together that we cannot have thought of. nih director on c-span plus some "q & a." ofyou have been out commission since 2006.
8:33am
the chairman has been on since 2009. will we expect some turnover with the commission? >> we all have staggered terms. the past years have flown by quickly. we will see. i get asked this question every couple years. i am thinking about it, but we will see. i have thought about this several times, what comes after the commission. as a limited government position, we should not stay in these positions forever. i love my job. we have a lot of imported work to do. there weret week, resignations announced from the fcc. we spoke with a commissioner before his announcement.
8:34am
hear it on monday night on "the communicators." " continues.journal host: 100 reporters were to the oval office for the first presidential press conference. a number of memorable occasions and moments, including this from 1974. president richard nixon and dan rather. [video clip] to make progress in the economic and political fields. [applause] news. rather with cbs [applause] >> are you running for something?
8:35am
[laughter] [applause] no, mr. president. are you? from march, 1974. joining us at the table is cbs' bill plante. you have covered every president since ronald reagan. you have witnessed occasions when reporters tried to get answers from the president. how have news conference this evolves over the years? guest: they began as a question and answer session between the president and reporters. wilson thought he was simply meeting reporters one by one. when there were 100 of them or more pushed into the oval office, he addressed them.
8:36am
then there were more who cannot make it that day. one week later, he did the same thing in the east room. they ask questions and that became the form. for the first 60 years, there was a back-and-forth. it was understood it was awful the record unless the president allowed -- off of the record unless the president allowed the quote. the modern news conference began with eisenhower, at least the televised card, and has continued since then. it has evolved in different ways. host: what makes a good question? what are you looking for and how you frame your question? guest: you want to ask a question that is straightforward enough that you will get an answer. if you frame the question where it comes in several parts, the
8:37am
question -- president can answer one part and not another. learn how tocan answer whatever he wants rather than the question that was asked. he wants to frame the question in a way that is straightforward and simple that does not have the possibility of going off in another direction. host: we will look at some questions, including one that he opposed to president reagan. as a series-- todd of questions about president obama. let's see how that unfolded. [video clip] to follow-up on the peace process. you begin your first term in cairo to talk to the muslim world. the decision to have a middle east envoy early. you said this will not slipped to your second term.
8:38am
we are in your second term. why are we further away from a two state solution? i am curious. what do you believe went wrong? did you push israel too hard? what do you wish you should have done differently? mr. prime minister, the follow- up that my colleague have. do you accept the president's understanding that iran is one year away when it comes to nuclear weapons. another question i have for you -- >> you say you get one question. you see this young lady from channel one. she had one question. questions.e muted four questions, right? >> this is not a kosher
8:39am
question, but don't hog it. exactly the kind of pitfall i was talking about earlier. chuck was trying to do a follow- up on a question that came earlier, which was inconclusive. then he'd have a question of his own. then he had a question for the -- then he had a question of his own. then he had a question for the prime minister. himself up.d no criticism. he is a good friend. he should have stuck to one question each. the set up where they have president and a foreign leader, in this case, our president was the guest. those kind of news conferences do not produce very much because
8:40am
there are only two questions her side. side.u often -- per and you often have translations. frequent person inside been briefing room has a new book. she is also a professor. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. it is good to see you both. the first news conference -- host: to first news conference was an inauspicious location. guest: the following week, when you are wilson had reporters come into the east room. he talks to them about what this relationship was going to be with reporters, how he needed them. he wanted them to work in
8:41am
partnership with him to bring information to the public. he also thought reporters from around the country could inform them about what was going on. besaid the rule senate would awful the record and it would be a transcribe session. he it was going to be a formal statement by him of his policy. we have those transcripts from that point forward. how did livelante, coverage of these press conference change things? guest: it changed everything. it was a great novelty when kennedy did it. being cleverat about the questions, making the reporters laughed. everybody loved it. what happened in practice was
8:42am
televising the news conferences cut down on the number considerably. , calvina can tell you coolidge had hovis -- hundreds of press availability is. guest: he had 531. guest: he talked to the president 531. how many times has president obama had a solo news conference in four years? 29. that is a solo news conference. the white house will come back and say he has said several london media appearances, media sets down with an individual reporter or he has appeared with a foreign leader or he has answered questions in the oval office. we are talking about news conferences closely defined. host: this is with president ronald reagan, who moved news
8:43am
conferences to primetime. here is bill plante posing a question to ronald reagan. [video clip] >> mr. president, you have said the accusation that bothers you most is that you do not care about the poor and disadvantaged. haveis is the thing we been trying to correct. host: it was pre-cable. cnn was in its infancy. the broadcast networks were time events. prime- oval office was trying to reach over the heads of the press. a significant amount of the evening viewing audience would have to watch the news conference because it was carried on all three networks. you could be watching wgn or the
8:44am
superstition in atlanta, but they would get a lot of few words. -- viewers. ronaldold in 1981 by reagan's media maven that they would go over our heads. before cable and social media, the newspapers and wire services set the agenda. we no longer do. martha, we are in the cable age and also twitter and social media and facebook. how is that changing the way this white house and future white house is to deliver their message? -- white houses deliver their message? it remains to be seen how
8:45am
it will fit into governing. they have not been able to harness it and make it work for governing. every president in the modern period has wanted to go around the white house press corps. in the eisenhower administration when they made their press conference transcripts on the record in 1953 and on television in 1955, the press secretary was interested in getting things out directly. in one of his diary entries he said, we will go directly to the people. that has repeated itself from one administration to the next. the white house press corps continues to be important because those are the people on the ground writing about what it is the president is doing about the policies that he is
8:46am
initiating and what is going on within the white house. that information spreads. you can have something like the huffington post that will be pushing up articles that are in the new york times. wary in thinking i could simply go around them as the white house press corps is irrelevant. relevant. guest: they have more tools than they ever did before. the white house has its own tv releases on the white house channel on the internet, on whitehouse.gov. what they show there are things we do not have access to. it is their own state-run media. guest: it then falls to the white house press corps to push back on that.
8:47am
through the correspondents association. there are situations where they put of video streaming and cannot allow television in at the same time. host: when the white house issues a photograph of the president in any setting, but it is only a white house photo, are news organizations becoming reluctant to use the photo? guest: it is quite the opposite. so many newspapers are in financial difficulties that they have decided to start hitting -- picking up those photos on flickr. ickr you see on those fl pictures is a view that the white house photographer is there to photograph the president, not the presidency and not what is happening in the white house, but solely resident.
8:48am
that really limits but the public knows. joynt kumar, thanks for sharing your insights with us and for pointing out this 100 of -- andity iversity of presidential -- anniversary of presidential press conferences. guest: when the white house chooses a photograph, if flatters the president. if photographers were allowed into the same event, they might captures something that is slightly offbeat or a different moment or a different look. as long as we do not have the same access, it is state media. they can put up their own material. the first amendment applies
8:49am
equally to them as it does to everybody in this country. if they deny us access and put out their own material, that is different. collaborative a effort between print and broadcast and radio and television in getting information to the press corps. the pool reported the president came back on air force one as he returned from the middle east. that is a rare occasion. guest: it is. it does not happen often. it is considered off of the record. what that means is that you can not report anything that the president said. you can report that the president came back and talked to reporters, but there are only a handful of reporters on air force one. they will generally pass on the substance of the president's remarks to the rest of the press corps in a limited way. eventually, it all leaks out
8:50am
anyway. that is another story. host: we have a former reporter who is now white house press secretary. does that help or hinder his job as press secretary to president obama? guest: he serves the president first before he serves the press. he knows how we work. he knows how we think. he has been in our shoes following other presidents. that is helpful to him and the white house. maybe not quite as helpful to us. we are focusing on what underuse of presidential news conferences. of presidential news conferences. barbara, good morning. ago, thereeral weeks was the comment that the white house press corps hates the president.
8:51am
is that reflected in your reporting? also, did you feel the behavior at the press conference with netanyahu reflected well on the white house press corps? guest: there is a natural antagonism toward the white house, in general. we are trying to get information they do not want us to have. we are not there to be a mouthpiece for any administration. we are not on the team. that is the important point. we are there to try to the best about our ability to get information out to you. if you happen to like this president, we are probably not doing our job in your opinion. if you do not like the president, we are still not doing our job because we are not tough enough. as far as chuck todd's
8:52am
performance, we try to get the best opportunity to ask questions. in that setting, it did not work because he was tripped up by the two people he was questioning. you can send us an e-mail or join us on our facebook page or send us a tweet. ofwill take you back to july 2007 as president bush reopened the refurbished white house briefing room and had this to say about the white house press corps. [video clip] why don't you all yell simultaneously? [laughter] really loudly. that way, you might get noticed.
8:53am
i will listen, internalize, play like i will answer the question, and then smile as you and say thanks. sound for such a solid, question. i will cut the ribbon. and then you yell. i cogitate. then i smile and wave. [laughter] bill plante. guest: he had a painful moment. he was getting at something that -- he had a playful moment, but he was getting as something that was true. they all try to get the attention of the president. he can choose to call on someone or choose not to answer.
8:54am
it is in his hands. that used to be the norm for news conferences. somewhere around the reagan era , it got some dates. people waited to be called on. -- it got very sedate. list already has a prepared of the reporters on whom he is going to call. it is hard to get recognized. president reagan once recognized a venerable reporter from texas, a woman who did not take no for an answer. he said, ok, i would take one from you. the folks at the army depot in texas are robbing the people blind. what are you going to do about it? the president said, i will have
8:55am
them look into it. he rarely took questions that he could hear. we yelled at him, he would come over. he wanted to answer the question. he always thought he could answer the question. the staff did not want him to do that after he was elected president. he was hard of hearing. every once in a while, he would without and he would stop that practiced grace and he would turn his head and say, well, i do not know. they have not told me yet. then he would grant and what on. a question on the democrats' line. about: i am wondering
8:56am
bradley manning today. we see this picture of president bush next to bradley manning and the caption is, bradley manning is forgotten and locked up and bush, who started the war, is walking around free. what is the press doing about that? guest: the press is covering the trial of bradley manning. he remains in custody. the trial is getting a lot of press coverage. coveringn you started the white house in the reagan era, cbs news dominated where people got their news. it has changed over the years. has it changed the way you are doing your job? guest: we try to cover the news on a daily basis for the morning and evening news cycles. socialaking use of media. we put everything we get on the
8:57am
web as fast as we can. we do not hold back any more. in 1981 when i started covering the wind gusts, we saved our best material for the evening news. we cannot do that anymore because we have lots of competition on cable and on the internet. whenever we get those out right away. host: i have to ask you about your colleagues, mark knoller. anytime they want official information about how often the president has been on a campaign event, they turned to him. explain the process he goes through in keeping track of the president's movements. guest: he has covered the white house since the ford administration. he decided that the beginning of the clinton administration that he needed to keep track of the statistics about the president's movements and the number of times he played golf, the number
8:58am
of fund raisers he has had and how much money has raised, just about anything you can imagine. he does this by stating the logs every day. he remains there until 8 or 9 every night. he has the most complete record is that exists. if the white house has a question about a number, they will see what his number italy's. he is meticulous and we are thankful -- they will see what his number is. caller: thanks for taking my call. question is how much opinion from the different main media sources becomes confused as news. i would like to hear your opinion about fox news. it is apparent to most independent and open minded people that not only are their
8:59am
stories skewed to the right, they are talking points and almost every issue is turned into a scandal, is turned into more reasons to disrespect the president. i appreciate the media challenging, but i would like to get your opinion on where you think fox news is leading the media. also, address how the rest of the media seems to defend them from time to time. referred to them as a sister news network. you will not hear that on fox news. all you hear about mainstream media and how you cannot trust them. i would like to hear your opinion and how you feel it has changed. guest: fox news thus skew rights. skew right.
9:00am
it is not an accident that -- that they have found a niche that they thought was underserved. in there coverage, fox news is fear and professional. nbc does must the same thing on the left. they are after an audience. it is a commercial decision. host: there was a comment by longtime press secretary when he was asked about the number of press conferences president bush 41 had and he pointed out, look where that got him. having a lot of these news conferences does not necessarily healthy president. guest: that is the prevailing
9:01am
view in most white houses. if you put the president up there thinking questions by himself for 45 minutes, you do not know what is coming. the potential for messing it up a little bit is always there. they do not like that. they cannot control it. as i said earlier, the number of news conferences dwindled from administration to administration. the last two demonstrations have last twosolo -- administrations have held few solo news conferences. the most common question that we get that i have gotten from people is, do you submit your questions in advance. the answer is absolutely not. white house staff can generally figure out what questions we are going to ask. we will ask the questions that are on the news topics of the day, about any lingering
9:02am
scandals led investigations. it is pretty easy. about youre ask you most memorable moment. you can think about that for a moment. we want to welcome on our audience on c-span radio. we are focusing on one end years of presidential news conferences beginning in formally beginning is, do youquestion all think it is helpful when this administration and by its local reporters from across the country to do interviews or do you look upon that with the stain? guest: i do not the stain it
9:03am
at all. it is not helpful to the process. it is another way for the white house to get the president out there, have him seen by a lot of people, particularly markets. if you look at and use their traditionally in key congressional districts. they credit the local members of congress to try to change something, to vote a certain way. it is all very carefully planned. i do not think the white house to crow about how much media experience the president has given. when it gets not so much to the rest of us. host: from louisville, kentucky, good morning. caller: i am generally curious
9:04am
as to what happens in an off the record conversation. what does that mean his starkly? what does it mean now? host: good question. guest: that is a great question. and off the record conversation by definition is one which you can chat informally with the president or a member of congress and you can use what you have learned to inform your own reporting. but you cannot quote him and it cannot say that you talked to him. in other words it has never happened except that you know more in the end. it saves person you are interviewing from any possible embarrassment's or for people being able to say -- it is rejected completely protect him. -- it completely protect him. you take with -- you take what
9:05am
you can get. >> heavy counted the number of countries have traveled to? guest: about 120. 1 of the questions to post to president obama on the affordable care act, syria's bill plante. thank you mr. president. anybody on capitol hill will say that there is no chance that the american jobs act in its current state passes either house. you have been out on the campaign trail baying away to pass this bill. it begins to look like you're campaigning and following the harry truman model against the do-nothing congress instead of negotiating. are you negotiating? >> what is true is they need to do something. the question then is will congress do something? if congress does something i
9:06am
cannot run against a do-nothing congres. if a congress does nothing than it is not a matter of me running against them, the american people or run them out of town. host: did he answer your question? guest: and no, he turned to his advantage. was is therereally any point in continuing to talk about the american jobs act if in fact it is not going to pass, which everyone agrees it would not. this is a campaign ploy. he turned it around and made the same argument that he is making on the trail, saying that if they would do something that it could pass. host: let this good adana in indiana. good morning. -- let us go to donna in indiana. good morning. the president's white house is more transparent than the past presidencies or is as
9:07am
transparent as he campaigns that it would be. host: the other part of that question is how you measure transparency? guest: i'm glad you brought that up. came into office saying we are calling to be the most transparent white house ever. they are no more transparent than any other white house because it does not suit them to be. all types -- all kinds of statistics. that is not earlier really the point. it is about explaining the process of making decisions. serve their own interest to do it. i understand why. the claim of transparency is a credible. credible.
9:08am
recordly it is off the bush 43,idents reagan, and obama. there is no denying that the opportunity to talk informally with the president is a very special thing. you come away having learned something about the person or about his policies. publicly have made a spectacle of myself so many times for better and worse. share one moment in april of 1988, president ronald reagan. >> george bush is doing well. he has been a wonderful vice president. nobody is perfect. i might put them in charge of and -- rorism
9:09am
focus on theuch presidential election i have been feeling a little lonely these days. i am so desperate for attention i almost considered holding a news conference. [laughter] we watch that, was there a private ronald reagan? was he different off-camera than on the stage? guest: he really wasn't. aboutt the same stories life in hollywood or california politics that you often got in public. he was in fact a very private man. but he was always cordial, always very pleasant. texted hinge joint news conferences? guest: i do not think it particularly dead. he was adept at dealing with them but i do not think he enjoyed them. host: you went to cover the
9:10am
candidates and the administration. did john kennedy in a joint news conferences? guest: i think he did. i believe he was ready for whenever reporters could throw at them and could disarm them with humor. host: let this good allen in ohio. good morning. about --anted to ask what was its relationship to the and advisingons woodrow wilson at the time of ?hat first news conference i am reminded that wilson got the u.s. involved in world war one and it was the first four in which mobilization of the public was manipulated by propaganda. i want to read the first paragraph on propaganda. he says the conscious of
9:11am
intelligent manipulation of the organized habits of opinions of the masses is an important element. those caught up if manipulated -- constitute an invisible government which is the true moving power of our country. -- from to what you are what your guest from university says, we are not getting more information from the public. we are manipulating the public more. let me go back to her earlier point as to how this all came back -- how this all came about. conference in 1913 was an auspicious occasion for president woodrow wilson. he is asked a question from "the new york evening post," and he responded politely and in the fewest possible words. let us go down to her point about manipulating the public.
9:12am
it depends on your view of the public, but you believe the man -- whether you believe the public can be manipulated. he wrote those words would hundred years ago -- those words 100 years ago when society and academia believed that the public was easy to manipulate. it is no longer true if it ever was. there are too many sources of information. there is no one source. state fundhave is media, say north korea, then you're not going to believe everything you hear. in this country, certainly in modern times, there has been a plethora of voices and you did not have to rely on any one of them. that is a good thing. >> this conference is began with president woodrow wilson 100
9:13am
years ago this month. they were televised. live press conferences began in 1961 with president john kennedy. thank you for waiting. jim is joining us from michigan. i just wanted to ask -- iery time i hear obama speak cannot believe half the words he says. when it comes on in the news media, they do not challenge him on anything. the first thing he does is playing at the republican party -- is blamed the republican party. we all know the democrats are doing the same thing. they are telling people lies, not telling the truth. his incompetence as a president -- this is why we are not
9:14am
getting things done. he is supposed to be a leader of the people. this media let everything go, obama is doing a great job. the american public knows it is not true. host: is that tactic any difference whether it is president obama are president reagan? guest: all presidents do that. i think one point that i totally agree with is that the press sayrally lets president's whatever they want to say and the challenges it in a different way. you get used to a president's normal life and this president blames the republicans. so what? are in charges of one house of congress. he blames them but who is listening? he hopes the public is. necessarily resonate
9:15am
with the press on a day-to-day basis. host: this is only anecdotal but often in a news conference is more newsmaker the second half after the president has followed up on his talking points and all presidents have then in the extensive questions and then often there is the unexpected question? guest: the example that comes to mind is my colleague asking president bush, 43, if there wa a moment where he wished he could live over. bush had to think about it. don't haveoo bad we the clip. you would haveh given me that question in advance so i could have thought about it." host: rich is joingin us from
9:16am
centerville, virginia. entered hisust second term and all presidents have a number of complacencies the award their contributors. i have been in the government in a while. it is a little comparison. if you are trying to save some money, you have those government employees that are all over the different departments. when they reserve them for presidential appointees -- there is a lot of incompetents. could you comment on that? guest: what you're saying is basically true. presidential appointees are often contributors. withdents reward them ambassadorships, cabinet secretary jobs.
9:17am
they are not always incumbent. sometimes they are not well versed but the machinery tends to run itself. given of modern government. host: let me ask you about a story that appeared on the front hiatt on the front page of "the washington post." the administration is about to make a major appointment or have a major change in policy they will very often leak the story either to the associated press with an embargo of the next morning at 6:00 a.m. or to one of the major newspapers, " he the new york times," for example -- "the new york times," for example." this is a standard practice. we have all come to accept it.
9:18am
we complain about it from time to time but we do it so they could put their viewpoint out there, sort of unfiltered. host: if you get a call and get asked to top off the record what is your immediate response? guest: my immediate response is "why" and "what?" it is important to remain off the record i will do it. "can we say, at least, x?" host: what is the biggest challenge of covering the white house over five demonstrations? guest: getting access to people who can tell you something. and getting them to talk. you can wander around the calls of the capital, you can run into people, you can pop in on various offices and see the press secretary. you can run into members and they will talk.
9:19am
there is always somebody on the other side. at the white house you have to rely on e-mail and telephone contact. you really cannot go around the offices because it is all secure. it is reaching the people. host: you covered for second- term presidents. oft can we expect in terms press access and availability? guest: the news conferences will be when they think they need to float a big idea or reach the public in a big way. there will be many of them. there will be continued press availability is but they will be very carefully managed. in second terms presence to not have to worry about reflections of a maybe a little bit more relaxed. target his media appearances of all time.
9:20am
host: is he still having fun on the job? guest: a love it. host: white house correspondent since the reagan administration. we're going to turn our attention to the defense program. michael o'hanlon of brookings institution is going to be joining us. of the sunday programs, including face the nation, can be heard on c-span radio. good morning, nancy. host: today on the network talk shows, the topics include same- gun-controle, legislation, and president's trip to the middle east. today's guests include michael
9:21am
blumberg. 1 pm eastern, the manager of president obama's reelection campaign and republican consultant karl rove. at 2:00 p.m. it is fox news sunday. cnn state of the union follows at 3:00 p.m.. colorado democratic governor and tom tarantino, chief policy officer for iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. the nationlock, face for cbs. bob schieffer talking with congressman mike rogers. and the president of "freedom thearry" president of family research council will be
9:22am
there. week," and "this finally "face the nation" from cbs > on c-span radio or anyone on xm, your smartphone -r online at cs- spanradio.org. >> the most striking difference is the calmness of the parade. a hundred years ago it wasn't a parade so much as a riot. the police refused to protect the marchers. as they progressed and down their planned parade route the crowds start larger and larger. there were very unruly. they started to throw things at women. they shouted things. they told to go home. -- not as that of streetcars
9:23am
the crowd got larger and larger and more aggressive. the women could not go forward. the police were not involved. the secretary of defense called up calvary's to push back the unruly crowds so women could continue their peaceful exercise of their first amendment right. it is a wonderful peacefulness assembly in a celebration for how far we have come. >> this weekend, a look the centennial celebration of the woman's suffrage parade that took place on pennsylvania avenue in march 1913 on american artist? today at 7:00 p.m.. on american artifacts. today at 7:00 p.m. host: we want to welcome michael o'hanlon. thanks for being with us. lots to talk about including afghanistan, north korea, and iran.
9:24am
this marks the 30th anniversary of the infamous star wars speech by ronald reagan. where are we 30 years later? guest: i was a critic of it too. it is not intimist and everyone's mind. it was character. it was yesterday that was the 30th anniversary. technologically it was always somewhere between the extraordinarily ambitious and a pipe dream. to creditedy people with putting enough pressure on the soviets that it contributed to their sets of the inevitable decline vis-a-vis our capability. the interesting thing to about missile defenses we are spending more on it now than we did under bill clinton. as much of a notion of a perfect shield against all intercontinental attacks has
9:25am
-- we're as illusory still spending a lot of money on missiles and missile defense. the gulf war in 1991 and other threats reminded us we need short range media capabilities. ofneed a limited amount long-range capability. i think a lot of people would say it is one of reagan's greatest accomplishments. hear an excerpt in a moment. this piece is out this morning -- host: it is still $9 million per year. beendent obama has chipping away a certain parts.
9:26am
and heagan was president gave the star wars speech, at that time annual spending on missile defense and inflation $1usted dollars was about billion per year. the end of the reagan era was at $5 billion. obama has shifted back down a little. it is a national priority. marchburley in his term, 3 of 1983 as he addressed the nation. >> we have saw to reduce or by maintaining a strong deterrent and by a seeking genuine honors control. deterrence means simply this, making sure that any adversary who thinks about attacking the united states or our allies concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. once he understands that he will
9:27am
not attack. we will maintain the peace through our strength. weakness only invites aggression. this strategy of deterrence has not changed. it still works. but what if they can maintain the deterrence? we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power. we take another kind, now that the soviets have not accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. this is not safe the soviet we union is planning to make war, nor do i believe war is inevitable. but what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats. let me move it to what we are dealing with today. it is a very real threat from north korea. guest: north korea possibility to strike the united states is doubtful at the very maximum.
9:28am
i am skeptical. they have had one long-range missile launch that could be described as a partial success. we do not really know if that missile came down anywhere near where they're redeeming it. -- of near where they were aiming it. even if they did have a missile land near the city, the nuclear warhead that they were trying to push over that whole trajectory, that 7,000 mile distance, might break up upon reentry. it is very hard to bring in an object as 7 kilometers per second and build heat shields well enough so the thing does not self-destruct. it is not clear they have a warhead small enough to fit on a long-range missile. it is hard to miniaturized nuclear warheads. pretty hard to build one that is 200 kilometers. and then we have the missile defense system which is at mid
9:29am
to late not perfect. have a interception may one-third to one-half chance of working and that is only against a simple threat. it does not have decoys associated with it. it could have decoys down the road. the twoy skeptical creance construct this country. unfortunately the can probably strike our allies. >> where is the biggest threat? guest: i think short and medium- range north korean missile threats -- south korea or japan -- is significant. we have forces in both those countries. we have americans abroad living in both those places. that is the way i would describe the north korean nuclear threat based on its missile force. two: let me follow up on points. the president to rid the iron dome. lessons and apply what israel is doing here in the u.s.? it is not yet one of these
9:30am
laser systems. we are working on that technology. it is a small interceptor. what they are intended to do is collect the small rockets that to not have nuclear warheads, but a small amount of conventional explosives on top of them that how maus might launch or more extremist terrorist groups in the vicinity of israel. i think the iron dome has gone well. has been intercepting 30%, 40%, 80% of those offensive warheads that is aimed against -- in any case it is giving israel a feeling that it can respond. psychologically it helps. when you're dealing with a small amount of conventional explosives psychology matters. it does not mean the israeli
9:31am
population is saved. when you consider these relatively small rockets, they are trying to create this psychological defense of terror. it does get israel counter to that. it should not be confused with a reliable enough system that can make you think you could stop nuclear warheads with high enough confidence that you can therefore considered the threats to be neutralized. obviously with one nuclear warhead getting through, that is one too many. host: this is a question posed by carl levin who is the chair of the senate armed services about u.s.- talking defense systems, what we can and cannot do. here's more from this during this past week. [video clip] last friday secretary hagel and the vice chair both said the currently deployed gnb systems with 30 interceptors in alaska
9:32am
defenseifornia currnetly america from north korea or iran. you believe the current system detects the united states against those long-range missile threats from stations such as north korea and iraq, including the east coast? >> we have coverage against both iran and north korea. >> for the entire united states? >> including the east coast? >> that is correct. host: can you elaborate. guest: it is more complicated than the brief exchange allowed one to understand. we don't think iran has a long- range missile right now. to some extent the answer could imply that we do not have an iranian threat. as to get out your clothes at home and look at the distance tom california and alaska
9:33am
florida and you look at the distance from iran to florida and the do it based on the least distance across the globe as a three-dimensional calculation, you will see that it is closer from alaska to florida than it is from a grand banks to florida -- and it is from iran to florida. at aboutre launched the same time the interceptor can get all the way to where it may be able to execute a successful intercept before the missile strikes florida. that assumes everything works well and you did not need a second or third shot. it also may leave out a certain small part of southern florida. some of the calculations i have seen, there is doubt whether an
9:34am
alaskan based defense couldn't really cover all of the east coast are simply most of it. that is what it boils down to. it boils down to rocket flight and kinematics. there is nothing complicated that the general is talking about the ever and would agree that it is not optimal to defend florida from alaska. host: does japan have this kind of technology? guest: japan and needs our help. there may technology is being developed in conjunction with us. this is a navy base system, a standard missile concept that the japanese also field. they're very good at some of the optics and sensors we need on the improved missile. this is an important u.s.-japan technology development effort, may be the most important the allies are working on together. japan has some capability. on the other hand, it of koreans can put a nuclear weapon on top
9:35am
of one of these missiles and have that weapon survive at the spirit the entry and if we do not prevented on the launch pad -- we will not wait for them to launch. all of those things, nonetheless, failed to prevent the launch and north koreans can deliver one nuclear warhead. that becomes a possibility. the capabilities we are building -- the japanese have a 60% chance of intercepting a missile. you have to hope of one of the ones you sent up have to get the job done. he serves as a senior fellow and is the author of a number of books, including, "pending history." the book " t the wounded giant." "the wounded giant."
9:36am
now kindhe question is of like a comet. i feel like we invest so much defense these anmissle systems. i feel like sometimes the american tax payer is told we need these systems. we invest all of this money and more likely than that we probably will never use them. we can take the money we are spending in the systems and invest in programs that people can really use. we are told we need the systems but they do not work. at the end it is a big waste of money. i want to know if i am wrong in thinking that way or if there are other people thinking that way. we put all this money in the
9:37am
systems -- we need to be paying money into schools and scholarships and crime and social programs. we put it in a bomb that we probably will never use. host: an estimated $9 billion? guest: every year. reagan's vision, we are not putting a lot of fight dia behind an impregnable shield. i do apologize for being scary but i often try to underscore -- if the north koreans try to attack us i think they would fail, even without missile defense. their missile systems and nuclear weapons would probably not even get this country intact if they tried to put it on a --g-range it o'clock dick on a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile. most of that 9 billion per year is going into the feeder missile
9:38am
defenses. our allies would need when deployed abroad in the theaters of the pacific or persian gulf. it is protect our men and women in harm's way. those are where the threats or credits for missiles. host: parnis, as robert in washington d.c. with michael o'hanlon. caller: good morning. this is a related question. i know it is not related directly to the missile site but it is highly technical -- i have read a report by the air force which is called "weather as a force multiplier." goes on to the militarization of whether by 2025 -- of weather by 2025. i am wondering if michael has any information on that. this document is available on
9:39am
our website. guest: fascinating question. it feels futuristic to be putting a pretty 25 timeline on it. you are still right to raise the question. people think there are ways to potentially affect the weather. it is not -- it is usually thought of not in military applications. operations it has been true for a long time if you can put your battle group in side of the storm and protect you knowally, if where a sandstorm is coming in iraq, understanding the weather may allow you to take military
9:40am
advantage. i think you're getting at the idea on to whether we can catch a park actually control -- we can partially control the weather. that raises some big broad ethical and other issues that you are probably getting at. i do not think it is an imminent matter for our national policy. host: this is a question for michael o'hanlon on our twitter page. "has russia installed any new issles on the borders of european nato members such as poland? guest: the obama administration made its decision last week. the russians have threatened to put more offensive weapons in the western part of their land mass, surely -- essentially european russia.
9:41am
i think that has been mostly talk although the russians still have a lot of nuclear weapons, including some relatively close to europe. to some extent it is the eye of the beholder. the interesting thing which has happened in the last couple of weeks, the obama administration appears to be backing off on what was going to be the fourth phase of the european missile defense architecture. the iroquois to do the first three phases. the fourth space is the one freshet dislikes the most. it is could be based in upper europe and poland. george w. bush had a system like this too. the obama administration modified. russians felt better about the modified plan but still did not like any capability in poland. you have this military question. to russians really worry that 20 defense interceptors in poland can affect their nuclear deterrent against us. do they need that anymore? then you have the psychological
9:42am
issue. the poles and others feel they have every right to cooperation with united states and to being part in nato. into these old cold war psychological issues -- i think the obama administration is trying to threaten nato and they are doing a good job try to figure out a way to try to be firm and clear. we are not going to back off our association with them because moscow does not like it. by the same token we will try to fears orthese russian paranoia in the interest of getting russian cooperation on issues like iran, syria, and afghanistan. you have to make sure you did not give russia any -- to give russia the sense that anytime we complained we will back off from military programs. we feel there are ways to get the job done that are less
9:43am
provocative. i think it is worth looking at those. host: let us turn to our caller from hammond, indiana. think thedo not threat to america is going to come from a missile from north korea or iran landing here on american soil. i think all the iroquoian to do is to the medium-range whistle, get a small warhead, the iroquois to detonated 30 miles above the united states and then the iroquois dissent and a emp out. -- and then they are going to send and emp out. we would send two-thirds of america back to the 1700's in a flash. there would be no preservation for food, no electronics in hospitals. i did not want to be on an airplane with the electronics crash. host: double for the call. guest: i think you are right. it is likely we would have huge damage from the north korean
9:44am
nuclear detonation that you mentioned over our soil. it may not kill anyone directly but it would hurt a lot of people and ultimately killed a lot in directly by shutting down our electronic infrastructure. it is not going to send us back to the 17th century but because we are dependent on electronic chips and sensitive electronic production lines it could lead to many months of the kind of world that you very vividly depict. i think that is one of the greatest dangers. the main thing the north koreans need to know is that there is no world -- no moral distinction or strategic distinction between that kind of person something that hits the york city. either way we are going to respond in the most strong of banners. it is a reason why a little missile defense here is a good thing. we could reduce the prospects of that particular destination by it resecting it before it got
9:45am
over our territory. request question about russia -- a quick question about russia. russia will find a way if it feels threatened. at the gaspaying pumps and that helps russia. their economy is not in the complete mess that it was in the '90s. they are back on the comeback trail. they have good natural resources. if they decide to put some money into the clear weapons they can do it. host: we are talking about nuclear defense systems. basically our focus on the star wars speech the president reagan delivered 30 years ago on march 23, 1983. here is more. [video clip] >> there was a time we depended on coastal forts. any attack would have had to come by sea by that day. we are in a different world and
9:46am
our defenses must be based on recognition of the weaponry possessed by an other nations. we cannot afford to believe that we will never be threatened. we have had two world wars in my lifetime. we did everything we could to be brought drawn into them. we were ill prepared for both. we have been better prepared -- had we been better prepared piece might have been preserved. host: ronald reagan has been a critic of the soviet union back in 1964. to iss issue specifically informing him and who was the driving force behind his policy? guest: i am trying to think back to my memory of that period. divisive ands is controversy all -- and controversial. you had people like richard perle who are still active today who are interested in shaking up the dynamic between
9:47am
the united states and the soviet union and travel -- and challenging some of the traditional paradigms'. reagan was essentially challenging that treaty, basically saying to the soviets that i am not going to play by the oval rules because you seem to be abusing these rules. we think you are cheating of some arms control commitments. you're building up every --sible selling rican ceiling where you can. maybe we can change the dynamics here. hoped connection protect the country from any kind of nuclear attack. most military and arms control strategists thought was feasible. even reagan officials simply wanted to change the dynamic with the soviets. put a little fear in them that somehow the united states can play to its psychological strengths and tweak the nuclear balance more in our favor but
9:48am
begin defense and to the question as well. you can make an argument that in the and there was some validity to that claim. the cold war did and a half decade later and the soviets had a sense of the crime. this was only one small aspect of the broader shift in soviet thinking. ago: it will be 50 years that president kennedy delivered his speech at american university not far from where we are. he talked about nuclear and missile technology and threat faced. atthe time the cold war was its peak. >> president kennedy has just been through the cuban missile crisis 50 years ago. i think he has notice of the military issues and some of the more acute because. the joint chiefs of thought that orbe they could destroy 80
9:49am
90% of soviet missiles in cuba before they're launched. if the bombs had gone awry or there had been missiles we hadn't known about the wood had to face the potential that would never limited amount of missile capability remained in cuba being launched out -- kennedy probably saw this more than anywhere -- more than any of the president. this technology has been around for half a century. in the '60s there was a big debate in countries that scientists tried to grab the initial defense missile capability. some of which included cutting nuclear weapons on the defensive missiles. detonating them over your own at mr. would cause some of the same issues, destroying some of your own country. we are dependent on phipps. we would have had bested the debut of have less electronic --
9:50am
we would have had less electronic destruction. both countries have thousands of nuclear warheads speed even if we could damage to intercept a few dozen, what difference does it make? host: let us turn to conrad joining us from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning to "washington journal" i have been very interested in the new weapon that i think is still being developed. bywas originally invented tesla technology. invented a company and thater cleaning system has many uses. sandyerestes began when
9:51am
hit the coast. it is supposedly able to create weather modification. it is funded through the navy and the airforce and the university of alaska. the outcome of these particular systems are uknown for the environment. it would be beneficial to the assistance to knock down long- range missiles. host: are you familiar with this? guest: you probably want a meteorologist to talk about these questions. one comment i would make is that weather systems are so enormously powerful compared to even nuclear-weapons in terms of the amount of energy that the idea of modifying them is a
9:52am
daunting proposition. even if we are thinking in non- military terms about hurricanes, my understanding of the problem is that we are quite a ways away from being able to do that. one thing we do not understand is the implications of any intervention leawood try to carry out. these weather systems are intervention we would try to carry up. these budde systems are enormous. not since the debate is not important for the issue is irrelevant. i think we are a ways away from being able to do things with the weather. host: this point on our twitter host: let us go to ramie from baltimore, maryland. caller: a couple of quick points. i think we are talking about a missile system that is designed
9:53am
to do impact on the u.s.. am in the national shipping business. i have always contended that our biggest worry should be pakistan. the reason i am saying that is we have the caliban and al caliban al have the qaeda acquiring weapons through them. these containers to not even have to come off the ships. what impact do you feel like this could have? why has this not been discussed openly? host: thank you for the call. guest: one quick note about pakistan, -- it is an important issue. i think there is a little more
9:54am
attention to this then you suggested. i agree with you that this is one of the most worrisome possible nuclear some areas. even though we have a difficult u.s.-pakistan military relationship we do work with them on their nuclear security. but we tried help with certain technologies. as far as i know they did not have their nuclear weapons intact and ready to go. they would necessarily need missiles in this scenario and it wouldn't be pakistan tried to attack us. there is a little more to it. the pakistani government isn't going to easily relinquish these weapons to any terrorist groups. even if they managed to get their hands on these things it is not so easy to put them in containers and have to be detonated at the right moment on
9:55am
the other end. we do have improved, security methods expecting a small fraction of the ships coming in. said, i tend to agree with your fundamental concern. i agree it would be the top of our list. pakistan's being the stability of the country is as important as any of our nuclear defenses. host: we are talking to michael o'hanlon, senior fellow at brookings institution. i know you just came back from afghanistan. you and your colleagues had written a piece for politico. can you elaborate? guest: in a nutshell, i did not want to sound but i am not optimistic about afghanistan the politics in kabul -- the difficulties with catalyst -- with pakistan in this matter are all there is substantial.
9:56am
all osama bin laden had his camp where he began preparation for the 9/11 attacks, this has been the heart of the tally ban movement for four years. movement foriban four years. a general investment of resources in that area has continued. the best news of all is afghan security forces are taking the fight to the enemy with our role being less and less. we are at the beginning of our downsizing efforts in afghanistan. we are down to 65,000 troops. we are heading for a smaller number by the end of next year. there is a gradual transition process under way. it is going well in military terms. we are only a certain distance down that path. the afghan army, the afghan police, and these local
9:57am
organizations called afghan local police are doing much against the taliban. the roads are much more usable. the city is thriving in terms of its markets and schools. it is one of the hardest areas to stabilize. i do not want to sell but i am keeping happy thoughts on afghanistan but there hasn't been much attention to the fact that in southeast of the country, things are substantially better and the afghans are showing the potential to take the fight increasingly from loss and take it to the enemy in the years to fall. we're going have to see this effort continue for a long time. let me ask you quickly about iraq. what will the country look like 10 years from now? guest: i am still troubled but hopeful. i think most of its leaders are aware that the civil war they
9:58am
have been through is a place they do not want to return to. so far we have not seen them take the same -- take the fateful step that could be energized to civil war. unfortunately the potential is still there. the prime minister is behaving self-centered and chauvinist. iraqtunately he is helping help get arms into syria. there are a lot of things that are not going in the right short-term direction. for all of the reports of iraqngs, iraq was 90% -- is 90% less violent. i am still going to stay hopeful. thankmichael o'hanlon, you for answering our of your calls and comments.
9:59am
we'll continue the conversation tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m.. among our guests come michael steele on what is next for the gop. ralph nader is out with a new book. man.faye tax that is tomorrow morning. "newsmakers" is next. have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)